Here’s a timely study from Northwestern University: It sheds some light on why people are so often influenced by false information. That’s especially relevant to the many falsehoods that circulate through social media age; especially those made by President- elect Trump. The study finds that people quickly download the inaccurate statements into memory because it’s easier than critically evaluating and analyzing what they’ve heard. Later, according to the lead author David Rapp, the brain pulls up the incorrect information first because it’s less work to retrieve recently presented material. “If it’s available, people tend to think they can rely on it. But just because you can remember what someone said, doesn’t make it true.” So, even when we know better, our brains often rely on inaccurate or misleading information to make future decisions.

It think this study’s findings have importance for understanding the political arena, especially the environment surrounding the 2016 Presidential campaign and its aftermath. Trump regularly cited blatantly false information – and many people swallowed it whole, despite disconfirming evidence. Even now, with his recent claim that thousands of votes were illegal – without a shred of evidence – his apologists and supporters claim it’s true.

The study shows that it’s even harder to avoid relying on misinformation when accurate and inaccurate information is mixed together.Rapp says, “We’re bombarded with tons of information all day; it’s a nightmare to critically evaluate all of it. We often assume sources are reliable. It’s not that people are lazy, though that could certainly contribute to the problem. It’s the computational task of evaluating everything that is arduous and difficult, as we attempt to preserve resources for when we really need them.”

He adds, “Trump just says things, but once you can get them encoded into people’s memories, they believe it, use it or rely on it. Disentangling truth from falsehoods when they are mixed up from different sources makes the challenge even more difficult.”

Consider the source: People are more likely to use inaccurate information from a credible source than from an unreliable source, according to Rapp’s previous research. “At this point, it’s even clear to Donald Trump’s proponents that his words are often nonsensical,” Rapp said. “But his strong supporters who want him to be right will do less work to evaluate his statements.”

Beware of “truthy” falsehoods. “When the truth is mixed with inaccurate statements, people are persuaded, fooled and less evaluative, which prevents them from noticing and rejecting the inaccurate ideas,” Rapp said. For example, during the campaign Trump initially said he saw the video of money changing hands for kidnapped individuals in Iran; he later retracted it. At the same time, news outlets reported there actually was a video.

A new study from Indiana University has found that people who are in high-stress jobs, and who typically have little control over their work — its flow, time-frame and impact – are more likely to die younger or have poorer health. compared with people who have more power and decision- making autonomy.

According to this news release from the Kelley School of Business, previous academic research has found that having greater control over your job can help you manage work-related stress. But it’s never suggested that it was a matter of life and death — until now.

The study, published in Personnel Psychology, used a longitudinal sample of 2,363 Wisconsin residents in their 60s over a seven-year period. The researchers found that for individuals in low-control jobs, high job demands are associated with a 15.4 percent increase in the likelihood of death, compared to low job demands. For those in high-control jobs, high job demands are associated with a 34 percent decrease in the likelihood of death compared to low job demands.

According to lead author Erik Gonzalez-Mulé, “We explored job demands, or the amount of work, time pressure and concentration demands of a job, and job control, or the amount of discretion one has over making decisions at work, as joint predictors of death. These findings suggest that stressful jobs have clear negative consequences for employee health when paired with low freedom in decision-making, while stressful jobs can actually be beneficial to employee health if also paired with freedom in decision-making.”

And, he added, “When you don’t have the necessary resources to deal with a demanding job, you…might eat more, you might smoke, you might engage in some of these things to cope with it.”

This small but useful study from Oxford researchers underscores our human interconnectedness; and that doing something positive for others enhances our own happiness. In a review of 400 published studies about the relationship between kindness and happiness,the researchers found that being kind did have a modest, but noticeable impact on the person’s happiness.

Although the review of the 400 studiesfound that the effect is lower than some pop-psychology articles have claimed, the researches pointed out that future research might help identify which kind acts are most effective at boosting happiness. They noted that existing research does not distinguish between kindness to family and friends versus strangers and, taking this into account, targeted kindness rather than indiscriminate kindness may have a greater effect on happiness.

The study’s lead author Oliver Scott Currypointed outthat “Our review suggests that performing acts of kindness will not change your life, but might help nudge it in the right direction. We recommend further research is done to compare the effects of being kind to family and friends as opposed to strangers. This is an area about which we know surprisingly little at the moment.”

Nevertheless, this brings to my mind the teachings from most spiritual and philosophical traditions, which describe the greater joy and happiness one experiences when doing something positively for others; when giving to others. For example, this from the Sufi teacher Hazrat Inayat Khan (1882-1927):

“A person who, alone, has seen something beautiful, who has heard something harmonious, who has tasted something delicious, who has smelt something fragrant, may have enjoyed it, but not completely. The complete joy is in sharing one’s joy with others. For the selfish one who enjoys himself and does not care for others, whether he enjoys things of the earth or things of heaven, his enjoyment is not complete.”

Couples often ask for advice about for how they can improve their communication. “If we could just find better ways to communicate with each other,” they say, “we would have a much better relationship.” So they seek couples therapy, they go to workshops for learning new relationship “skills;” and they read the latest books and articles about communication techniques and strategies.

But If better communication could create more intimate, loving and sustaining relationships, why are so many couples unable to find what works? The answer is that they may be on a “fool’s errand.” Good communication, per se, doesn’t make relationships better. Rather, good communication is a feature, an outcome, of having created a positive, sustaining relationship to begin with; not it’s source.

Some new research, as well as observational studies of couples that experience positive, lasting and energized relationships can help explain this. First, a recent study from the University of Georgia looked at the connection between communication and the degree of satisfaction that couples report. It found that good communication in itself could not account for how satisfied partners were with their relationships over time.

The researchers recognized that other factors must be influencing couples’ satisfaction; and that good communication can result from those other factors. According to Justin Lavner, the lead author of the study, published in theJournal of Marriage and Family, the more satisfied couples do communicate better on average than those who are less satisfied. That’s expected: “In general…the more satisfied you are, basically, the better you communicate.”

However, in the majority of cases, communication did not predict satisfaction. “It was more common for satisfaction to predict communication than the reverse…satisfaction was a stronger predictor of communication. These links have not been talked about as much,”he added. “We have focused on communication predicting satisfaction instead.”

The Roots of Positive Relationships

That may be why so many couples seek better communication only to discover that it doesn’t help much. Positive relationships — one’s that sustain vitality and intimacy at all levels over time

– aren’t created by applying various techniques or strategies; or “tools” that you can use, like new computer applications. Rather, they are rooted in the less tangible attitudes and “wavelength” of the two partners; in how they engage each other emotionally, spiritually and physically in their relationship, each day.

When you look at relationships from that perspective, it’s understandable that other recent studies find links between positive relationships and several ways they impact both mental and physical health, and overall wellbeing. For example, a study published inSocial Personality and Psychological Science found that couples who feel valued by their partner, who feel cared for and understood in their “core,” have better sleep. Similarly, a Florida State University study found that couples are more satisfied with their relationships to begin with get more sleep than those who are less satisfied.

That study, published in theJournal of Family Psychology highlights the fact that the way you engage your partner in your ongoing relationship will affect your overall wellbeing in many ways. The quality of sleep is a good indicator of both your mental state and overall health. An example of the latter is a study showing thathappy partners experience better health, especially during middle age and beyond. That study, of nearly 2000 heterosexual couples from Michigan State University and published inHealth Psychology, found that people with happy spouses were much more likely to report better health measures over time.

Be “Radically Transparent”

Of course, creating and maintaining a sustaining intimate relationship isn’t easy. But in my view it can be practiced. Some ways to do that include you and your partner examining and revealing how each of you experiences your own self within the relationship. How you see your own life “evolution” over the years. Are you in synch with each other’s vision of life together? If there are gaps, how can you address them and deal with them?

I’ve written previouslyabout the perspective and practice of “radical transparency,’” which can help couples assess those and other questions openly and honestly. What I wrote included this description of the two parts of radical transparency:

One is being open and revealing about yourself to your partner. This includes letting go of inhibitions or defensive feelings you might be harboring about what you haven’t revealed; but also acknowledging your reluctance to do so.

The flip side is being open and receptive to your partner’s reality—his or her feelings, wishes, desires, fears…and differences from yourself. It means openly encouraging your partner to express them to you.

Radical transparency can be painful; perhaps relationship-threatening. But it’s more likely to open the door to strengthening the foundation of your relationship. You’re saying, in essence, “This is me. This is who I am.” It’s about showing your whole person—your fears, desires, needs, hopes, and experience of life. And it’s about showing your desire to know your partner and be known in return—emotionally, spiritually, and sexually

I’ve written previously about new research that shows how mind-body practices such as yoga and meditation have a positive impact mental and physical health. I recently came across a new study, and it adds to the accumulating evidence about the value of these practices. This one finds that yoga, in particular, can help reduce and diminish anxiety – the most widespread type that we describe – in the terminology of diagnostic categories — as “generalized anxiety disorder.”

Sound familiar? Anxiety, along with depression, are the two most prevalent symptoms that practitioners see; and the most often treated with psychotherapy — along with the many medications that pharmaceutical companies have created for this enormous market.

In short, the researchers found that yoga tended to reduce worry, a primary symptom of anxiety.

As the lead authorJessica Morgan Goodnight explained, “When people have this diagnosis, they worry a lot–uncontrollably–about the future, which causes physical symptoms like muscle tension and trouble sleeping, and their lives and their relationships are impaired because of it.”

She reported that in this study, “Two participants showed decreases in daily worry ratings after they started yoga and reported less worry on a daily basis. The third participant was steadily increasing worry before starting yoga, but the increasing trend ended and began leveling out after she started practicing yoga.”

This is one small study, of course. But I think it’s significant because it shows that yoga can help people with anxiety reduce their symptoms. Other research has shown similar effects from tai chi, Qigong, and that even short-term meditation affects the regions of the brain that are related to anxious and depressed emotional states.

“It’s nice to provide options for people with mental health conditions to try to reduce their symptoms and increase the quality of their lives…(and this shows) yoga could be an option for people.” The researchers say pilot studies like this pave the way for more conclusive research to be conducted in the future.

In a previous essay I argued that reading serious literature – not popular fiction – helps your “evolve” and deepen your self-awareness and emotional capacities; and I cited some research that provided evidence of just that. Now, a new study underscores and adds to those findings and observations.

In my earlier article I wrote, “Delving into serious fiction engages you in the core human issues that everyone grapples with, consciously or unconsciously. The prime one is the question of, “What’s the meaning of life; of my life? And, related issues concerning moral judgment, the impact of social conventions, conflicting paths in life, and so on.”

Related to that, I cited researchreported in the New York Times: That reading serious fiction has a demonstrable impact on increasing empathy, social awareness and emotional sensitivity. The study found not only that reading serious fiction increased reader’s emotional awareness and empathy, but that pop fiction did not have the same effect. In my view, those findings illustrate an essential part of becoming more fully human.

And now, a new study has found that reading literary fiction appears to be associated with superior emotion recognition skills. This study found that participants who recognized and were familiar with authors of literary fiction tended to perform better on an emotional recognition test. This association held even after statistically accounting for the influence of other factors that might be connected to both emotion skills and reading more literary fiction, such as past educational attainment, gender and age.

The authors then conducted a second study involving over 300 more participants. It also included a measure of participants’ self-reported empathy levels. This was to check that it’s not simply that people with more empathy are more attracted to literary fiction and also tend to do better at the emotion recognition test. Again, participants who recognized more literary fiction authors also tended to perform better on the emotion test. Moreover, this association remained even after controlling for the influence of differences in participants’ empathy levels.

This new study adds to the knowledge that child relationships have profound and lasting impact on a range of adult experiences, including personality traits, the potential for positive engagement with others; or for emotional disturbance. This study, published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, found that insecurity in childhood makes it harder to deal with stressful experiences as an adult. That’s often visible in how individuals respond very differently to situations that might be challenging or difficult in some way.

I think the upshot of this study, described below, adds to the growing knowledge that childhood experiences have lasting impact; a long “tail” throughout many dimensions of adult life. In this case, its impact is visible when dealing with potentially anxious or stressful situations.

The key challenge is determining what can heal the impact of the past and enable new growth.

In this summary of the current study, Christine Heinisch, one of the authors, points out that, “We know from other studies that our history of attachment directly influences how we act in social situations, but what about reaction to a neutral stimulus under emotional conditions?”

She offers the example of when a car approaches a traffic light. Under neutral conditions, it is easy for the driver to follow the signal. But what happens under emotional conditions?

“Usually, people tend to make more errors, like stopping too late or even driving through when the traffic light is red. Sometimes they stop although the light is still green,” she explains.

But not everyone’s actions are impacted by emotions to the same extent. Some of us had emotionally responsive caregivers or parents in childhood, while others didn’t.

Heinisch added, “We expected those having problems with emotional regulation to make more errors in performing a task – and one significant variable influencing this is our attachment experience.”

To test this theory, the researches conducted a study on adult subjects with different childhood caregiver experiences. Subjects in the study performed a task of identifying a target letter from among a series of flashing letters. This task was administered under conditions that evoked a positive, neutral, or negative emotional state. The researchers then assessed task performance and analyzed EEG recordings of brain function in their subjects.

The results revealed that subjects who did not have emotionally responsive caregivers in childhood – reflecting insecure attachment — had more trouble performing under emotionally negative conditions than the others, who reflected more secure attachment. They also had lower brain activity in response to the target letter under negative conditions than secure-attached subjects.

The lower task performance correlated with inefficient strategies for emotional regulation seen in insecure-attached adults. This could mean that a greater share of cognitive resources was allocated for regulating emotions, and consequently, less was available for performing the task.

There are limitations to the study, of course, and the researchers plan to explore the findings in more real-life situations.

No surprise, here: Yet another study has demonstrated that unengaging, insufficiently meaningful work — and the overall work culture — has negative impact upon mental health. And, it’s apparent by the time you’re 40.

Thisnew research foundthat debilitating work experiences in your 20s and 30s have an accumulated negative impact on your mental health by the time you’re into your 40s. And that continues on, needless to say. The research found that people who were unhappy with their work early in their careers became more depressed, worried, and had more trouble sleeping.

Of course, many previous studies have shown that the majority of people are unhappy with their work – even hate it. For example, a 2014 survey by the Conference Board. But oddly — despite all the research and clinical evidence that debilitating work and unhealthy management impacts your mental health in increasingly harmful ways over time – those mental health consequences continue to be overlooked or ignored.

This new study was conducted by Ohio State researchers. It investigated the long-term health effects of job satisfaction, or lack of it, earlier in people’s careers. It analyzed data from longitudinal surveys of nearly 6500 American workers, in which people rated their level of satisfaction with their work.

According to the findings, described in this report from Ohio State, all participants reported a number of health issues after they reached the age of 40. Specifically, those people who expressed the lowest job satisfaction over the years reported much higher levels of depression, sleep problems, and excessive worry; as well as scoring lower on traditional mental health measures.

Moreover, those who initially reported high job satisfaction, but then had a downward trend, were more likely than the consistently satisfied group to report trouble sleeping, excessive worry, and symptoms of psychiatric conditions And among those who had low job satisfaction, their mental health was more affected than their physical health.

As one of the researchers, Hui Zheng, pointed out, however, “The higher levels of mental health problems for those with low job satisfaction may be a precursor to future physical problems. Increased anxiety and depression could lead to cardiovascular or other health problems that won’t show up until they are older.” Zheng added that a person does not have to be at the end of their career to see the health impacts of job satisfaction on mental health: the study participants were examined while in their 40s. Overall, “We found that there is a cumulative effect of job satisfaction on health that appears as early as your 40s,” said lead author Jonathan Dirlam.

Back from a vacation this summer? Back to work and the kinds are back in school? Perhaps beware! It looks like divorces tend to rise following vacations. True: A study from the University of Washington has found that divorce is seasonal during the periods following winter and summer vacations; and that it might be driven by a “domestic ritual” calendar governing family behavior – and how vacations may exacerbate underlying tensions and conflict.

As reported in thesummary of the research, Prof. Brines mentions that troubled couples may see the holidays as a time to mend relationships, and they might believe that if they have a happy Christmas or a successful camping trip, everything will be “fixed” and their lives will improve.

However, in reality, those periods of the year can be both emotionally charged and stressful for many, and they may expose cracks in a marriage. The seasonal nature of divorce filings may reflect the disillusionment unhappy spouses experience when vacation time does not live up to their high expectation, the research team points out.

“People tend to face the holidays with rising expectations, despite what disappointments they might have had in years past,” says Prof. Brines. “They represent periods in the year when there’s the anticipation or the opportunity for a new beginning, a new start, something different, a transition into a new period of life. It’s like an optimism cycle, in a sense. They’re very symbolically charged moments in time for the culture,” she adds.

Couples may make a conscious decision to file for divorce in August, following the family vacation, and before the kids start back at school. Prof. Brines and colleagues examined the reason for the divorce spike in March. Given that March is a few months after the winter holidays, is there still a connection between divorce and vacations?

Prof. Brines suggests that while considerations for divorce are the same during both peak periods – sorting finances, finding an attorney, summoning the courage to go ahead – the start of the school year may hasten decisions for couples with children in August.

The divorce peak in March could also be influenced by the trend of a rise in suicides in spring. Experts also indicate that the extra daylight and increased activity during that time of year elevates mood enough to motivate people to act.

Prof. Brines and Serafini were initially investigating the effects of the recession – observing rising unemployment rates and declining house values – on marital stability. While examining divorce filing throughout Washington, the team noticed monthly variations with the pattern of heightened filings emerging in March and August. “It was very robust from year to year, and very robust across counties,” Prof. Brines explains.

After accounting for other seasonal factors, including the housing market and unemployment, the pattern remained. The team hypothesized that if the pattern was tied to family holidays, other court actions involving families – such as guardianship rulings – should show a similar trend, which proved correct.

During the recession, patterns had a slight shift, with a peak earlier and later in the year and more unpredictability in trends. Prof. Brines notes that this trend disruption is unsurprising given the uncertainty around financial considerations, such as housing values and employment. However, the pattern shift during the recession was not statistically significant.

Future research will examine if the trends noticed in Washington also apply to other states. Prof. Brines and Serafini have already analyzed data for Ohio, Minnesota, Florida, and Arizona – states that have similar laws to Washington but have different demographics and economic conditions.

So turn up the volume! A new study finds that playing music while people are working actually increases cooperation and teamwork. A series of experiments conducted by Cornell University found that music has an impact on the cooperative attitudes among workers.

According to a summary of the research, the question arose from the observation that “From casual acoustic melodies at the coffee shop to throbbing electronic beats at teen clothing outlets, music is used to mold customer experience and behavior.” The researchers wondered what impact it might have on employees? So they conducted two studies to test the effect of different types of music on the cooperative behavior of individuals working as a team.

The researchers, Kevin Kniffin, Jubo Yan, Brian Wansink and William Schulzer, published their findings in the Journal of Organizational Behavior, described in this summary from Cornell:

For each study, participants were grouped into teams of three. Each team member was given multiple opportunities to either contribute to the team’s value using tokens or keep the tokens for personal use.

When happy, upbeat music was played – researchers chose the “Happy Days” theme song, “Brown Eyed Girl” by Van Morrison, “Yellow Submarine” by the Beatles and “Walking on Sunshine” by Katrina and the Waves – team members were more likely to contribute to the group’s value. When music deemed unpleasant was played – in this case, heavy metal songs by less than well-known bands – participants were more likely to keep tokens for themselves. The researchers found contribution levels to the public good when happy, upbeat songs were played were approximately one-third higher compared to the less pleasant music.

When researchers conducted a second experiment testing how people react when no music is played, the results were the same. The researchers conclude that happy music provokes people to more often make decisions that contribute to the good of the team.

“Music is a pervasive part of much of our daily lives, whether we consciously notice it or not,” said Kniffin, a behavioral scientist at Cornell and lead author on the paper. “Music might melt into the background in places like supermarkets or gyms and other times it’s very prominent like places of worship or presidential nominating conventions. Our results show that people seem more likely to get into sync with each other if they’re listening to music that has a steady beat to it.”

Wansink, director of the Cornell Food and Brand Lab, added: “What’s great about these findings, other than having a scientific reason to blast tunes at work, is that happy music has the power to make the workplace more cooperative and supportive overall.”

The researchers suggest managers consider not only the customer experience but also workers’ when picking the day’s music. Starting the day with this simple consideration in mind could result in happier employees and more teamwork.

“Lots of employers spend significant sums of time and money on off-site team building exercises to build cooperation among employees. Our research points to the office sound system as a channel that has been underappreciated as a way to inspire cooperation among co-workers,” said Kniffin.

Our culture is witnessing growing diversity in how people choose to live; with whom, their traditions and norms. But it’s practically a stereotype to portray single people as unhappy, unfulfilled, and lonely; perhaps emotionally troubled. Of course, that can be true for some. We see some psychotherapy patients, for example, who are single and experience significant conflicts in their romantic quests.

But that’s also a misleading assumption. In fact, new research from UC Santa Barbara turns that picture of single people on its head: It finds that single people have heightened feelings of self-determination and are more likely to experience more psychological growth and development than many married people.

According to the study’s lead author, Bella DePaulo, “It is time for a more accurate portrayal of single people and single life – one that recognizes the real strengths and resilience of people who are single, and what makes their lives so meaningful,” DePaulo adds, “The preoccupation with the perils of loneliness can obscure the profound benefits of solitude.”

And there are plenty who are solitary. Currently,Bureau of Labor Statistics show that 50.2 percent of the nation’s adult population were single as of 2014. “Increasing numbers of people are single because they want to be,” DePaulo points out. “Living single allows them to live their best, most authentic, and most meaningful life.”

Moreover, other findings contradict the view of single people as necessarily more isolated, lonely and unhappy. For example, one study finds that single people value meaningful work more than married people. And, that single people are more connected to parents, siblings, friends, neighbors, and co-workers. Also, another study foundthat the more independent the person was, the less likely they were to experience negative emotions.

Overall, this new study, in combination with others, suggests that single people have a heightened, conscious sense of their personal development. They are more likely to experience continued growth and development as time passes.

Based on the study, DePaulo emphasizes that “What matters is not what everyone else is doing or what other people think we should be doing, but whether we can find the (circumstances) that fit who we really are and allow us to live our best lives.”

I think these studies underscore the reality that there are many ways to live a fulfilling, meaningful life; and experience continued growth through your lifetime. It depends on the person you are: what you value and seek in your personal life and in your relationship to the world that you’re interconnected with – whether you’re part of a committed couple, or single.

The 18th Century Zen poet and teacher wrote “Not knowing how near the truth is, we seek it far away.” That describes the relentless search for new “truths” that promise to sustain emotional and sexual intimacy with your partner. But sometimes the most important information stares you right in the face; you don’t “see” it because it’s so obvious.

Here’s an example: It’s found in some new research on couples’ relationships from the University of North Carolina. It finds that couples whose partners feel and express appreciation to each other, and who take time to share in moments of joy tend to experience more ongoing, positive connections with each other. Such opportunities occur, especially, in the small moments that occur every day, in many people’s lives. But they’re often overlooked or ignored.

According to the lead researcher Sara Algoe, the findings point to the significance of “the little things.” They have big impact on relationship longevity and wellbeing. Moreover, we know that many other studies, have found that positive relationships are associated with greater overall health, over the years.

In asummary of the research, Algoe points out that one partner’s expression of gratitude reminds the other partner that he or she is a good relationship companion. The research method is described in detail here, but the upshot is that couples who expressed gratitude towards each other in those small moments reported that their relationships become stronger, more positive and flexible in their interactions with each other.

“Whenever you have an interaction with your romantic partner,” Algoe explains, “that feeling you have when you walk away sets the stage for the next interaction with that person.” And, expressions of appreciation and gratitude show that that they “…can help connect people and build these upward spirals of mutual love and support.”

Additional research adds to the value of building connection in the many small ways available to couples. For example,sharing humorous moments and laughing together. “People who spent more time laughing with their partner felt that they were more similar to their partner,” Algoe says. “They had this overlapping sense of self with the other person. We also found that the more people laughed with their romantic partner, the more they felt they were supported by that person.”

Of course, building and sustaining long-term intimacy is complex. It requires developing your own self-awareness and collaboration with your partner, especially around differences of outlook and life goals that may emerge over time. But recognizing and practicing little “truths” that are hidden in plain sight can contribute to the foundation for stronger, sustaining intimacy as both partners change and grow.

Those of us in the mental health professions are too silent and disengaged from an important responsibility we have to individual lives and society today. To explain, we live with increasing fears and insecurity, as we worry about what may lie ahead in this world: The increasing disruption and violence. Steady, unrelenting transition to a diverse and non-white majority U.S. culture. Continuing economic uncertainty. The impact of not dealing with climate change, and how it will alter the lives of future generations. And, especially, growing cynicism about the capacity of our social and governmental institutions to really understand or deal with any of these new realities of life.

In view of the above, we psychologists and psychiatrists should be playing a visible role in identifying what psychologically healthy living consists of, in the midst of today’s world: What it looks like, in our ideas, our emotions, our behavior; and in our public policies. And, what supports those features of mental health in the face of today’s challenges. I think we’re abdicating this role. I plan to write more about this in the future, but want to sketch out some ideas here, for discussion.

Generally, we can describe health as whatever promotes positive, constructive adaptation to change; what enhances flexibility and proactive behavior when dealing with changing or unexpected life circumstances; and mentally embracing the reality that our internal wellbeing and outward success are interdependent with those of others. Overall, that means behaving in ways that promote the common good, publically and privately. Interdependence, much of which is fueled by globalization and the merger of technology and communication, requires it.

This perspective asks us mental health professionals to take some positions and voice them publically. That is, articulate and advocate those social, cultural and political issues that promote psychologically healthy lives and society, rather than ignore those that undermine or impede them. To do so, we’re aided by a wealth of knowledge and information to draw on. It comes from clinical experience with a range of people who seek our help; and from extensive, published empirical research. The two sources converge. But too many of our mental health professionals don’t connect the dots. Or they don’t want to, perhaps in fear that voicing a position would erode their professional authority with their patients.

In fact, the themes that emerge from people’s experiences in psychotherapy, as they grow beyond healing and managing old conflicts, coincide with themes from much empirical research. For example, both realms confirm that a positive impact upon people’s lives results from cultivating empathy and compassion; and from finding a larger purpose to serve in one’s life, beyond just self-interest.

This convergence is visible in personal relationships as well as in people’s work and career experiences. One example: Research shows that supporting mutual wellbeing, conveying positive emotions towards an intimate partner and transparency of wishes, fears, and hopes sustain your relationship long-term. And at work, studies find that that people who apply their career strengths to a purpose larger than just their personal reward — beyond pay and promotion — have more fulfilling, creative work lives. All of the above findings reflect qualities of the mind and heart. The impact of “growing” them, as research shows, is the same as what we see from clinical work with psychotherapy patients. There is extensive evidence of convergent evidence form both realms that we haven’t brought together. Doing so would demonstrate their implications for psychological health.

In my view, we mental health professionals should acknowledge, promote and — yes — advocate for the evidence we have and its implications. We should be key players; not disengaged or silent. We know what’s needed for healthy functioning in today’s world, at all levels of society. Our role should include showing a path towards positive, adaptive ways people and policy makers can absorb and respond to today’s difficult challenges. Our professional responsibility is to help all of us move towards a healthy, mutually supportive society in the midst of changing, worldwide forces and needs. The latter will only increase, not vanish or return to an era that no longer exists.

Credit: CPD Archive

]]>Why Women Who Have More Sexual Partners Are Less Likely To Divorcehttp://www.progressiveimpact.org/why-women-who-have-more-sexual-partners-are-less-likely-to-divorce/
Mon, 27 Jun 2016 18:28:06 +0000http://www.progressiveimpact.org/?p=2436June 27, 2016

So often, what we assume to be true reflects an embedded set of conditioned attitudes. And those often reflect prevailing values and expectations more than real people’s behavior or trends within changing social and cultural circumstances. A new study highlights an example of that. Its findings contrast with “established” fact — that women who have multiple sex partners prior to marriage necessarily experience an increased likelihood that they will eventually divorce.

As our society evolves, people’s intimate relationships also evolve. That requires learning more about what supports lasting, positive partnerships, or their eventual dissolution. And how that information may show itself in changing survey data.

Thisnew research from the University of Utah provides some insights into recent social and behavioral shifts. Although it found that women with over 10 sexual partners prior to marriage show an increase in divorce rates, so do those with only two. Both had higher rate of divorce. But the lowest was found in those with 3 to 9 partners.

The research was published by the Institute for Family Studiesand summarized in a report from the University of Utah. According to the lead author Nicholas H. Wolfiger,“In short: if you’re going to have comparisons to your [future] husband, it’s best to have more than one.” He added that sexual behavior has changed significantly throughout recent decades.

Previous studies had found overall, that women who marry today have more sexual experience prior to marriage than their counterparts had in previous decades. For example, 21 percent of women were likely to marry as virgins in the 1970s, compared with 5 percent in the last decade. The highest five-hear divorce rate – 33% — during the 2000s was associated with women having over 10 sex partners, and perhaps that’s not unexpected. But Wolfinger points out that the bigger surprise is that prior to recent years, women who had only two partners prior to marriage had the highest rate of divorce.

The study didn’t assess the frequency of men’s sexual partners prior to marriage upon subsequent divorce rates, and that should be addressed as well, of course. The upshot of the current research, though, is that we’re in the midst of social transformation towards greater openness about what kinds of relationships men and women find fulfilling, and what kinds of experiences prior to – or instead of marriage – enable positive, intimate and mutual partnerships to grow – and sustain.

Both liberal and conservativewriters express amazement over Donald Trump’s consistent inconsistencies – even incoherencies – regarding the positions he voices. But in fact there are no contradictions at all – once you realize there’s a larger theme, connecting them. It’s an overall, consistent mentality.

To explain, let’s look at the apparent discrepancies. One that’s particularly baffling is a seeming disconnect within Trump’s attitudes and behavior towards women. Arecent New York Times story highlighted this. It described blatant, sexist objectification of women in his private relationships, relating to them as objects to seduce and possess as romantic conquests — until he becomes tired of them. And yet, he’s also promoted women to positions of management and responsibility in his business entities. So on the one hand, Trump looks like a conventional, though somewhat exaggerated, sexist skirt-chaser. But on the other hand, a modern, equality-promoting executive.

More broadly confounding are Trump’s multiple, ever-changing positions on policies, both domestic and foreign. They, too, appear incomprehensibly inconsistent from one moment to the next. Now you could explain that incoherency as the behavior of a more extremely bombastic, highly narcissistic politician. One who often expresses unanchored, off-the-cuff thinking. After all, narcissism is almost a job requirement for politicians, as Harold Lasswell described decades ago in his seminal book,Power and Personality.

But most narcissistic, power-seeking politicians want to garner enough broad support to get elected. Typically, they do that through charisma, crafted positions and calculated posturing for maximum appeal. That’s what doesn’t mesh with Trump’s emotionally unregulated — and ultimately self-undermining — indiscriminate attacks on others. Including needed allies or potential supporters, even. That latter, destructive mentality is more reminiscent of one of Gore Vidal’s bon mots: “It’s not enough that I succeed; others must fail.“

So on the surface, Trump’s attitudes and behavior don’t appear to reconcile, whether about women in particular or his political aims. But they really do. There’s an overriding theme that ties them all together: An overall mentality – an emotional and mental perspective and attitude. It’s that of an unbridled, unquestioned sense of personal greatness; of total power to control, possess and dominate as one wishes; for whatever purpose desired, at any moment.

It forms a caricature of a Conquistador, set in 21st Century USA. It’s an authoritarian who can do whatever he wants as it pleases him or serves his interest at the moment, or given a particular situation. It reflects high intelligence and savvy about finding the right vulnerability of others in order to exploit them for one’s benefit. It embodies unquestioned belief in one’s entitlement to take all for oneself; and destroy any who are in the way or who oppose you.

So: promoting or seducing women? It’s all the same, really: “You’re my possession, and if you do what I want you do to, whatever it is, I’m good to you, will take care of you. But if you don’t; or you cross me, I’ll destroy you.”

And incoherent inconsistencies about policies? No problem: “I change my mind in any direction I choose, and I will make it happen. My unbridled sense of greatness, power and control makes that possible. It’s all good. It will be great.”

A recent TV interview ofShark Tankstar and successful real estate entrepreneur Barbara Corcoran described the essence of this mentality from the inside: Both she and Trump started out in the business during their 20s, and she’s known him through the decades since. She describes him as a master salesman — for himself.

According to Corcoran, Trump “… hasn’t changed one inch… he’s your best advocate when you’re on his side (but) if you ever differ with him, he was your worst nightmare. Traits like fairness, fair play, no bullying don’t exist. You can’t believe in anything he says, that he will actually do it…”

Is The Trump Mentality A Mental Disorder?

Psychologically, this Trump mentality of a modern-day conquistador is the connecting thread throughout all his apparent inconsistencies of positions and attitudes. I’ve been asked, does this warrant a psychiatric diagnosis? One could go there, but I think doing so narrows and limits our understanding. That is, any innate tendencies we have can be shaped and strengthened – for better or for worse – by the social and cultural forces we experience. In my view, a broader understanding is important, given that we’re in the process of choosing the next President. Of course, the sources of the Trump mentality and the reasons for its emotional appeal are complex; they warrant another discussion. But two are worth highlighting:

One reflects a more extreme version of behavior displayed by many men who face steady erosion of traditional male power and status in society, a position which has rewarded them handsomely. They are so self-identified with it that they respond with vigorous efforts to hold on to their power and perks – even increasing it as much as possible, through whatever means necessary. Corrupt behavior, outright lying; whatever “works.” Their attempts to preserve that sense of malehood – essentially extreme self-interest – is a form of psychological denial. They can’t believe that the world could ever cease to be as it’s always been for them.

A current, sad example of this is visible in the Houdini-like contortions many Republican politicians leaders are now going through – voicing support for Trump’s election, while also rejecting his racist, bigoted views and dog-whistle appeals to the GOP’s base.

No surprise, really: We know from research that an increase of power tends todiminish your empathy towards others. And, that embracing high status and material success arelinked with attitudes of entitlement and narcissism. But the inconvenient truth is that societal transitions require letting go of rigid attachment to things for the self, and supporting only the privileged few – whether in the form of money, power, or material acquisitions. That means relinquishing some of that self-interest to provide support for the common good. The latter is the basis for increased wellbeing, security and enhancement for all lives in today’s world.

Another source of the Trump Syndrome and its emotional appeal stems from pervasive social and political shifts, demographic and economic. They have unleashed fears, insecurity and anger among many Republican voters, and towards the Republican establishment. The GOP has long-sought their support via direct or indirect appeals to racism, bigotry, fears of gays, dislike of abortions and fears that guns will be taken away; arguing that the future those voters desire lies with keeping the Republicans in office. But many realize they’ve been duped. They got nothing in return, while the GOP establishment continued to profit, for themselves.

That’s fueled resentment. And it creates receptivity to someone who can express and exploit their anger about their situation. Someone who can direct it towards the establishment. And, who can confidently claim to be able to fix everything through sheer personal power. Hence, the emotional appeal of an authoritarian conquistador: He’s going to solve everything through the strength of his power and authority. Many are now acknowledging the role of the GOP in “creating” the Trump mentality, especially the former Reagan and George H. W. Bush senior official,Bruce Bartlett, a vociferous critic of what’s now the Republican Party.

There’s also a larger backdrop to both the erosion of traditional male power and status, and the GOP strategy that’s come home to roost: The rise of unpredictability and continuous uncertainty about what will happen next in the world at large. Trump’s erratic and incoherent positions look like an increasing norm. In the past, events could be unpredictable, but relatively stable in the sense that you could anticipate that things would return to “normal;” to some kind of familiar equilibrium. But today, we live in a non-equilibrium world. There’s no previous, stable state to return to.

In effect, we’re becoming more numb to erratic, unpredictable and frightening change. The columnist Walter Shapiro recently described this in Roll Call: “In a sense, the incoherence of the world — when Americans can’t decide whether to worry more about Iran, China, Russia or North Korea — protects Trump from the incoherence of his policy prescriptions. If no one has figured out a way to eliminate terrorism, then maybe, voters might figure, Trump has a point when he suggests committing war crimes against the families of ISIS fighters.”

The upshot of the Trump mentality is this: Effective leadership requires collaborative relationship skills, openness, curiosity, interest in learning from others… and expanding one’s self-awareness. The Trump mentality of the Conquistador has no interest in any of that. If he’s a highly skilled salesman he can take advantage of the new normal, the current social conditions, and the desire to maintain or restore traditional male power. He can create an enticing emotional appeal to others, as the lone solution, which enables his rise to power. And he can serve his own wish for self-preservation at the same time. That conquistador mentality is the making of a tyrant. Could it work in 2016 America? Stay tuned.